FIRST DIVI SION MARCH 31, 2008

No. 1-06- 1447
DONALD D UFFY, ) Appeal from the ) Ci rcu it Court of Pl ai n tif f -A pp el l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) v. ) No. 02 L 5279 ) JA MES G. TO GHER , RENEE TO GHER , ) LAT HA M P LAS T I CS , I NC
. f/k /a Pa cific ) Po ols I ndus t ries, Inc ., BLACK ) OAK PO OL S UP PLY , I NC. , a nd ) PAC IFIC INDUS TRIES, IN C., ) Ho no r ab le ) Ral

ph Rey na, Defe ndan ts-Appel lees ) Judge Presi din g. ) (Sha unn a Trav i s, ) ) Def en dan t). ) JU STI CE RO BE RT

E. G OR DO N d el iv ered th e op in i on

of th e c our t: On Ju l y 15, 200 1, p l ai

nti f f Don al d D uf f y , ag e 2 1, d ove

into a n i n- ground sw im m ing pool
an d s us t ain ed inju r ies t ha t led t o his b ec o ming a q ua dr iple gic
. T he sw imming p o o l wa s lo ca t ed in the backy ard of a si ngl e-fam il y h ouse owned and occupied by defen dants Jam es G. and Ren

ee Togh er i n P al os Hill s, Ill

inoi s. D ef en da nt B l ac k O ak

Pool Sup pl y , In c. ( Bl ac k O ak), s ol d the p ool to the To ghers and i

nstall ed the po ol in

their backyard; and defendan t Lat ham Plastics, I nc . ( La t ha m) , man uf

ac t ur ed t he po o l’s line r . P ac ific I nd us t r ies , I nc . ( P ac ific ) , wa s s imp ly a f orm er n am e u se d by La th am. D ef

en da n t Shau n a T

ra v i s, wh o i s n ot a p ar ty to th i s a pp ea l , i s b othNo. 1-06- 1447

2

t he T o gh er s’ nie ce an d t he pe r so n w ho invit ed pla int iff t o us e t he T o gh er s’ po o l. Plai nti f f ap pe al s th

e ord er of the ci rcuit court of

Cook Cou nty, gr an

ting m oti ons f or
sum ma ry j udgme nt by defen dants Toghers, Bl ack Oak and Latham . For t he reasons dis cussed bel ow, we reverse. BACK GROUND The par t ies ag re e t hat at t he t ime plaintiff dove into t he T og her s’ po ol, t her e we re : ( 1) no si gns say ing “ no di vi ng” ; a nd ( 2) n o ma

rkersindi cati ng th e depth of the w ater. A

t hi s di scovery depositi on, defen

dant Jam es Togher testifi

ed that Vin

cent Perfetto, t he owner of B la ck Oak, provi ded th e Toghers with “no di

vi ng” si gns an d other w arn

ing s i gns that h e ch ose not to post. At he rdis co ve r y de po sit io n, de fen da nt Re ne e T o gh er t es t ified t ha t wh en fr ien ds an d fa mily ca me t o u se t he sw imm

ing po ol, she t old t hem “no d iving” beca use she be lieved t hat diving into t he pool was “dan

gerous.” Defen

dant Renee Togher testif

ied that she repeated these oral warn in gs “a lo t . ” N eit he rJa mes no rRe ne e T o gh er wa s a t ho me w he n p laint iff do ve int o t he ir p o o l. At his discovery depos ition, plaintif f test if ied that he sto od o n the west side of the po ol’s per imeter and d ove hor izont ally i nt o t he no rt h end p or t ion o f the po ol; his hand s st ru ck t he bott om of the poo l f

irst, before his h

ead. Plain

tiff test if ied that he had never been in the To ghers’ po ol p rio r t o t he da t e o f his inj ur y, t hat he had not walke d int o t he no rt h end o f the po ol befo re he dove, that he had “ seen the l adder, so [he] fi

gured that t he water’s deep en ough that you need a ladde r t o c lim

b ou t of [ it] ,” t hat he “figur ed a po ol had a sha llow end and a dee p end ,” and t hat he
ass um ed h e was di vi ng i nto the d eep e nd of the p ool. The par t ies do not dispu t e t he fo llowing fac t s abo ut t he T og her s’ po ol. The To gher s’ in-No. 1-06- 1447

3

gro und swimm

ing poo l was completed o n May 10, 2000 , app ro xim ate ly a year before plaintiff

’s
ac ci de n t. Th e p ool i s r ec tan gu l ar , w ith

a l en gth of 36f ee t an d a wi dth of 18 f eet. O n th e s outh end o f the po ol, t her e ar e br oa d, built- in ste ps lea ding d ow n into t he po ol. The st eps t ra ver se t he entire width of the poo l, wi th hand rails on either side. At the oppo site end of the poo l, there is a ladder desc ending i

nto the po ol. The ladder is cl ose t o t he nort h end, but locat ed o n the po ol’s east si de. There i s no di

vi ng board. The floo r o f the swimmi

ng po ol has a U s hape , w ith a vinyl li ner . T he de epe st par t of t he po ol is in the middle, w ith sha llow ar eas at bot h its no rt h and s ou t h ends . T he wa t er dep t h in the north a nd s outh en

ds i s l ess than 3 f eet, wh il e the depth in th e m i ddl e i s 5 f eet 7 i nc he s. In the m i ddl e, th e f l oor h as a tw o-f

oot, f l at a rea , wi th th e p ool ’s de ep es t depth . Th

e f l oor of the pool sl

opes down from bot h i

ts nort h an

d south ends, toward t hi s f la t area in the

mi ddle
. Pl ai nti f f adm itted at his de

posi tion that h e h ad gon e to a ba r approx imatel y two hours prior to t he acci

dent and consum

ed two t o t hree gl

asses of rum an d Coke. Plai

ntif f testif ied at his d ep o sit io n t ha t he wa s a pp r o ximat ely 5 fee t 10 inc he s t all a nd we igh ed 18 0 p o un ds at t he t ime of th e a cc i de n t, a n d that h e w asde f in itel y n ot i n tox i ca ted at th e ti m e of th e a cc i de n t. Th is ca se invo lved t he a ffida vit s a nd d ep o sit io n t es t imon y of s eve ra l exp er t s. Pla int iff reta ined D r. R al

ph Joh ns on, a s wi

m m ing pool ex pert; Dr. Sam

Gl uc ks be rg, a p rof es sor of ps ycho lo gy; an d D r . Le o n Ka za r ian , a b io mec ha nic al e ng ine er . De fen da nt s r et ain ed Dr
. Je r r o ld Blai r Lei ki n, a toxicol ogi st. Dr . R al ph Joh n son , a sw im m in g p ool ex pe rt re tai n ed b y pl ai n tif f , l i sted i n h i s a f f i da v it a
num ber of ways i

n wh ic h the Toghers’ pool v

iolated in dustry standards s et by

the National

SpaNo. 1-06- 1447

4

an d P o o l In st it ut e ( NS PI ) an d t he Amer ica n N at io na l St an da r ds I nst it ut e ( AN SI )
. I n his affid av it and at hi s di scovery

depositi on, Dr. Johnson stated that t he desi gn of the Toghers’ pool was “very un usual .” With r esp ect t o t he po ol liner, Dr . Jo hnso n’s affidavit st at ed t hat its d esign w as “a da ng erou s, d

ec ep ti ve an d non- trad

iti ona l de si gn in th e re si de nti al pool m ark et.” Dr. Joh

ns on expl ai ned that “[m

]ix in g shal low an d deep water in

a non-standard appl

ic ation i s conf

usi ng, dec ept ive and u nsafe fo r t he o rd inary po ol u ser who expe ct s t o s wim in a poo l with a s hallow a nd a deep end.” Dr. Joh ns on’ s a f f i da vi t f urth er s tate d th at th

e Toghe rs ’ p ool cre ate d a n “ opti ca l ill us i on of a d ee p e nd , ” w it h “a cla ss ic d ee p- en d la dd er ” a t o ne en d o f t he po o l; a nd br o ad st ep s t ypic ally
asso ciat ed w ith a s hallow e nd, at t he o t her end o f the po ol. He s t at ed: “In my op inion, ha d t he
nor t h end o f the po ol bee n des igned w ith st eps and ha ndr ails, t his accid ent wo uld no t have
oc cur re d. ” He also obs er ved: “In o rd er t o c omp ly with ANS I/ NP SI , t he ladd er sho uld have been pla ced i n the deepes t part of the pool, whi ch i s the m

iddl e.” I n a dd it io n, Dr
. Jo hns o n’s affid av it st at ed t ha t sinc e “ t he po o l bo t t o m [w as ] un ifo r m in t ext ur e and po st ur e, ” t he po ol d ept h was “diffi cult if not imposs ible to judg e. ” At his dep os itio n, he noted th at th

e l ine r wa s “ Spa

rkl e B l ue ” i n c ol or, w ith a

“ Creek Stone” pa

ttern . Dr . Joh

ns on t est ifi ed t hat “[t ]he pat t er n wo uld help t o o bscu re t he bo t t om. ” He explained t hat : “I f you ha ve no patter n on the b ot to m, i f y ou have a sol

id bot to m wi

th a contour li

ne down, then y

ou can perce ive the s l ope of

the p ool.” Dr. Joh ns on a l so te sti f i ed at h i s dep osi ti on a bou t his q ua l i f i ca ti ons as a s wi m m ing poolNo. 1-06- 1447

5

ex pe r t , as fo llo ws : H e r ec eiv ed his b ac he lo r ’s an d ma st er ’s de gr ee s in p hysic al e du ca t io n, an d h is docto rate in sport s adm

in is trat ion. He worked f

or 25 years at Indiana Un iv ersi ty of Pen nsy lvani a, where he served as a swi

mm in g and div in g coach, a direct or o f aquatic f acil ities and progr ams,
an d a prof

ess or of h eal th an d ph y si cal educ ati on. In

1997, h e b eca m e a prof ess or of s port
man ag eme nt an d c ha irma n o f t he sp o r t man ag eme nt de pa r t men t at No r t h G r ee nville Co lleg e in So ut h C ar o lina, wh er e h e is cu r r en t ly emp lo yed
. I n 1 99 3, he fo un de d P r o fes sio na l Aq ua t ic Consul tants International , which provi des aquatic c onsul

ting s ervi ces to cli ents such as the Red Cross, the YMCA an

d the Uni ted St ates Department of the Nav y. He h as al so authored textb ooks that a

re us ed by

arch itects an d en gi ne ers to desi gn a

quati c f aci l itie s. Dr. Sam Gl uc ks be rg, a p sy ch ol ogi st h i red as an ex pert b y plai nti f f , i s a prof es sor of psy ch ology an d ha s b een

on the f acul ty of Pri nc eton Un

ive rsi ty s inc e 196 3. A

t hi s di scovery depos i ti on, he opi ned, b as ed

in p art on

hi s rev i ewof Dr. Joh ns on’ s a f f i da vi t and de pos iti on tes tim ony an d p l ai n tif f ’s de pos iti on tes ti m ony , th at i

t wa s n ot ope n an d obv i ousth at th

e n orth end of the Toghers’ pool was sh al low. Dr. Leon Kazari

an, a bi omechani cal engi neer speci al izin g in accident-related i

ndustrie s ret ained by

plain tiff , submitted an aff

idavi t and t estified at his discovery depositio n that plain tiff ’s inj uri es w ere c onsi

sten t with a h eadf i rst di ve into shal l ow water. Dr . Je rr old Blair Le ikin, a med ical physician spe cializing in to xicolo gy re t ained by de fe nd an t s, t es t ifie d a t his di sc o ve r y de po sit io n t ha t he r ev iew ed : pl ain t iff’ s d ep o sit io n t es t imo ny;
rec ords of the Pal os Hill s f i re d ep artm en t wh i ch responde d to the a

cc i de nt s ce ne ; a

nd rec ords of Chris t Ho spital wh

ere plai ntif f was b rou ght after t he accident. Based o n hi s review of theseNo. 1-06- 1447

1 De fen da nt s file d t hir d- pa r t y co mpla int s fo rco nt r ibu t io n t ha t ar e n o t at iss ue o n t his ap pe al . Som

e of the thi rd- pa rty de f en da nts f il ed m oti ons f or s um mary j udgm en t tha t are al so n ot 6 re co rd s, D r. Leikin t est ifi ed t hat it w as his o pinion t hat plaint iff was into xicat ed a t t he t ime of t he accident. Dr. Leiki

n al so test if

ied that a bl ood sampl

e drawn f rom pl ai ntif f at Ch rist Hospi tal approx imatel y an hour a f ter the a cci den t contai ne d a b l ood-al

cohol l ev el of .0 6. In actions for driv in g under the i

nf lue nce of a lc ohol, the Ill

in ois Veh ic le Code requires that certa in bl oo d-alcohol l

evel s giv e rise to cer tain presumptions. 625 ILCS 5/11- 501.2( b) (West 200 6). If a d ef en da nt’ s bl ood-a

l coh ol l evel wa s .0 5 or l

es s, “ it shal l be pre su m ed tha t the pers on
was not unde r t he influence o f alcoho l.” 6 25 I LCS 5/ 11- 501 .2 (b) (1 ) ( West 200 6) . I f the de f en da nt’ s bl ood-a

l coh ol l evel wa s m ore th an .05 bu t l es s than .08 , th en “ su ch f ac ts s ha ll not giv e ris e to any presum

ption that the person was or was not under the i nf lue nce of a lc ohol.” 625 I LC S 5 /1 1- 50 1. 2( b) ( 2) ( We st 20 06 )
. I f t he de fen da nt ’s blo o d- alc o ho l leve l wa s . 08 o rmo r e, “it sh al l be pres um ed th at the p erson

wasund er the i nf l uen ce of al cohol .” 625 ILCS 5/11-5 01.2 (b)(3 ) (We st 2006 ). Pla int iff’s se co nd ame nd ed co mpla int , wh ich is t he o pe r at ive co mpla int o n t his a pp ea l, al leged the fol

lowi ng counts: count 1, again st the Toghers, for premi ses l ia bi li ty; counts 2 an

d 3, aga inst d efenda nt Lat ham, fo r st rict liabil ity and ne gligence ; and c ou nt s 4 a nd 5, aga inst d efenda nt Black Oak, for strict liab

il ity an d negli gence. Count s 6 and 7 again st defendant Pacif ic were al so for st rict liabil

ity and ne gligence . As no t ed a bove , P acific was merely a fo rmer name o f defend ant La t ha m an d n o t a s ep ar at e e nt it y. 1No. 1-06- 1447

at iss ue in t his a pp ea l. 7 In h i s c om pl ai n t, p l ai n tif f al l eg ed th at def en da n ts’ s a ctsan d om i ss i on s i n cl ud ed : f ai l in g to pos t or provi

de wa rn ing si gn s, p ool rul es , de pth mark ing s or a s af ety rope to di vi de shal l ow f rom de epwa ters ; i nstal l ing a p ool wi th a n u nu su al f l oor wh i ch cre ate d a de ce pti ve im pre ss i on of dep t h; loca t ing a ladd er at one end, t her eby cre at ing t he misleading impre ssio n of a dee p end ; and in stall in g a pool that did not conform to in dustry standards f

or residential

swi mm in g pools as estab l i sh ed by the A m eri can National Stand ardsIns titute (A

NSI). Defe ndan ts Latham , Blac

k Oak and the Toghers al l m oved for sum

ma ry j udgme nt. On Apr il 13, 2 006 , t he t rial co ur t hear d ar gument fro m all couns el co ncer ning t he su mmary judgment
m oti ons . Th

e d ef en da nts ’ pri mary argum en t f or s um mary j udgm en t wa s that th

e Toghe rs ’ p ool
con sti tuted an ope n a nd obv i ous da ng er, an d th us non e of the de f en da nts owe d a duty to wa rn or otherwise protect pl ai

nti f f agai ns t the da nge r of d ivi ng i nto i t. On May 17, 200 6, the

tria l court i ssu ed a h

an dwri tten order that di sposed of the s um mary judg ment mo t ions in o ne line: “All m ot ions fo r su mmary judgment ar e gr ant ed, insta nt er .” The
or der did no t spe cify the t rial co ur t ’s r eas ons for gr ant ing t he su mmary judgment mot ions. The order was a fi

nal judgm ent wi th respect to defen

dants Toghers, Bl ack Oak and Latham . On May 18, 200 6, plai

nti f f f il ed a n otice of a ppea l , an d thi s appeal

f oll owed. AN AL YSIS T his a pp ea l co nc er ns t he gr an t o f su mmar y jud gme nt . “[ S] umma r y jud gme nt is a dr as t ic
m ea su re [ tha t] sh oul d on l y be al l owe d ‘ wh

en the righ t of the m ovi ng pa rty i s c l ea r an d f ree f romNo. 1-06- 1447

8

doubt.’ ” Mydla

ch v . Daim

le rChry sl er Corp. , 226 Ill . 2d 307, 311 (2007), quot in g Purt il l v . Hess , 111 Ill. 2d 229 , 2 40 ( 198 6) . A p laintiff is not re quir ed t o p ro ve his cas e at t he su mmary judgment stage . Jackson v . TLC Associates, Inc. , 1 85 I ll. 2d 4 18, 423 (1 998 ). A tr ial cou rt may grant
sum mar y j ud gm en t “ on l y wh ere ‘ th e p l ea

di n gs , de pos iti on s a

n d adm i ss i on s on f il e, toge th er wi th t he affidavit s, if any, s how t hat t her e is no genu ine issue a s t o a ny mater ial fact a nd t hat t he movi ng party is enti

tled to a judgm

ent as a m

atter of l aw.’ ” Ri

ch v. Pri nci pa l Li f e In su ran ce Co. , 226 Il l . 2d 359 , 370 (2 007), q

uotin g 735 I LCS 5/2-10 05(c) (

We st 2006 ). On a m otion f or sum mary j udgm en t, the tri al court ha s “ a duty

to construe

the record strictly agai nst the m ovant and l

ib erall y i n f avor of the nonm

ovin g party.” Ja

ck son , 185 Il. 2d at 423 -24 ; Os bor

ne v. Cl ay don , 266 Il

l . App. 3d 43 4, 435 ( 1994)
. As a r es ult , su mmar y jud gme nt is not appro priate: (1) if

“there i s a di spute as to a material fact” Ja ck son , 18 5 I ll. 2 d a t 42 4) ; ( 2) if “reasonab le persons could draw di

vergent i nf erences f rom undi sputed materi al

facts” Ja ck son , 185 Ill. 2d at 424 ); o r ( 3) if “reaso nable pe rso ns co uld d iff er on t he we ight t o be given t he relevant facto rs” of a l

egal standard ( Cal

le s v. Scri pto -Tokai Corp. , 224 Il

l . 2d 247 , 269 (2 007)). A tri al court’ s gran

t of su m mary j udgm en t i s s ub j ec t to de novo revi ew. Rich , 226 Ill . 2d at 370. Fo r t he r eas ons discu ssed below , su mmary judgment was not app ro pr iate in this ca se. The
recor d creat es a genuin

e issue of m

aterial f act abou t whet her the defendants knew there was a danger an d fai led to fol low through on thei

r duty to warn. Defenda

nt Latham, the man

ufacturer of t he po ol liner, cr eat ed s t icky labels o f war ning, w hich it p asse d t o d efenda nt Black Oak , t he in stall er. Black O ak, in

turn, passed the sticky

la bel s to t he customer, even though i t knew customers rarel

y stuck them on thei

r poo ls . As ex

pected, defenda

nt Jam es Togher did n

ot stickNo. 1-06- 1447

9

the l ab el s on h i s pool , wh

i ch l ef t hi s wi f e Rene e tel

l i ng p eopl e n ot to di

ve . In s hort, the

record
cr eat es a genu ine issue o f mate rial fact abo ut whet her t he T og her s’ po ol wa s an a ccide nt wait ing to happ en . Bel

ow, we discu ss i

n de tail eac h th eory of l i ab il ity a gai ns t each def en dan t. Def en dan t Toghers In his co mplaint, plaint iff

alleged one co unt of p re mises liabil ity aga inst d efenda nt Toghers. General

ly, “[a] possessor of prem is es has a duty to guard again st harm to an i nvi tee.” Ma tthews v. A va

l on Petrol eu m Co. , 375 Ill . App. 3d 1, 14 (2007), citin g La Fe v er v . K em l ite Co., 185 Il l . 2d 380 , 391 (1 998). The Toghe rs’ attorney

stated to the

tria l court duri

ng a rgum en t that the Togh

ers w ere
mo ving fo r s ummar y jud gme nt “o n o ne p o int and o ne p o int o nly”: t hat t hey d id no t o we pla int iff a duty of care because their poo l posed an open and obvious danger. The defendan t To ghers’ argum en t i s b as ed on “ the pri nci pl e of Il l inoi s l awwh i ch hol ds tha t pers ons wh o own , occupy

or
con trol an d m ai nta in l an d a re n ot ordi na ri l y req ui red to f ors ee an d pr otec t ag ai nst inj uri es f rom pot entia ll y da ngerous condi

tions that are open and obv ious.” Ja ck son , 185 Ill . 2d at 424-25, Buchel eres v. Ch ic ago Park District , 171 Il l . 2d 435 , 445-4 7 (199 6). The questi on of whether a pa rticul ar lan

downer owed a duty of care to a particul ar in vi tee und er a th eory of prem i ses l i ab il ity is a q ues tion of l aw. La Fe ve r v . K em l ite C o. , 185 Ill . 2d 380, 388 (1998). Ho wever, when a court cannot co ncl

ude as a m

atter of l aw that a condition posed an open and obv

ious dan ger, then “the obv

iousn ess of the dan

ger is for the j ury to determi

ne.” Kl en v. Asa hi Poo l, Inc
. , 268 Il

l . App. 3d 10 31, 1044 (199 4); Sim mons v. Am erica n Drug Stores, I nc. , 329 Ill. App. 3d 38, 43 (2 002) (“Whether a condition presents an open and obvious danger is aNo. 1-06- 1447

2 Ap pr o ximat ely 2 0 c o ur t ca se s inv o lving he ad firs t aq ua t ic inju r ies ha ve o cc ur r ed in I llino is si nc e 199 0. Cl

em en t, Ri sk M an agem

en t Issue s i n Sp ort: Headf

i rst A quati c Inciden t Court Deci si ons: The Plai

ntif f’ s Odds , 17 J. Legal

Aspects of Sport 107, 125 (Win ter 2007) (lis ting 19 Il l inoi s state an d f edera l court cas es between 19 90 an d 2005 ). 10 qu es t io n o f fa ct . ”) , cit ed by Sol l am i v. Eaton , 201 Il

l . 2d 1, 20 -21 (20 02) (Ha rri son, C .J., di ss en ting ) (“ W he the r a c ond iti on p res en ts a n op en an d ob vi ous da ng er is a que sti on of f ac t f or the tri er of f act”), Buchaklian v . Lake C ount y Fam il y Young Men’s Christian Ass’n , 314 Ill . App. 3d 19 5, 2 03 (2 00 0) (“ sum

mar y j ud gm en t i s n ot prope r w h en re as on able m

in ds coul d d

i f f er asto wh eth er a con di ti on w as ope n a

nd obv i ous [; ] ** * s uc h a

de term ina ti on i nv olve s a f ind ing of f act”). The gene

ral rul e i n Il li nois is that a body of wa

ter presents an open an

d obvi ous danger whet her it is nat ur allyoccu rr ing, s uch a s Lak e Michiga n, o r it is man-made , su ch as a sw imm ing pool. Ja ck son , 185 Il

l . 2d at 42 5 (provi di

ng citation s to cas es). 2 De sp it e t he ge ne r al r ule , I llino is court s hav

e found that the dangers of particul ar bodies of water were not

open an d obv i ous. Ja ck son , 1 85 I ll. 2d a t 426 -2 7 ( submer ged pipe c re at ed d ange r in lake t hat was not op en and obviou s); Kl

en , 26 8 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 1044 (d an

ger of di ve into sha ll ow, a bov e-g roun d pool wa s n ot op en and o bvious t o r easo nable 14 year- old) ; Schel le nbe rg v. Wi nne tka Park District , 23 1 I ll. App. 3d 46 , 51-52

(1992 ). I n a dd it io n, t he “o ne an d o nly” g r o un d a ss er t ed by t he T o gh er s in s up po r t o f t he ir
sum mary j udgm en t motion i s not an ab sol

ute b ar to li ab il

ity. Cal le s , 224 Il l . 2d at 27 1. OurNo. 1-06- 1447

11

suprem e court has hel

d with respect to a premi

ses l ia bi li ty cl ai m that “ [t]he exi stence of an open and obv ious dan ger is not a per se ba rt o find ing t ha t a d efe nd an t wh o o wn s, o cc up ies o rco nt r o ls la nd ha s a duty to exerci se reasonable care.” Ja ck son , 185 Il

l . 2d at 42 5, Buchel

eres , 171 Ill . 2d at 449 (n ot “an automati c or per se ba

r”) . Oth er r el ev an t f ac tors i nc l ude : “ [1] the

l i ke l i hood of injur y, [ 2] t he r ea so nab le fo rs ee abilit y of s uc h injur y, [ 3] t he ma gnit ud e o f [t he b ur de n o f] guardin g agai nst the i nj ury, an d [4] the consequences

of pl aci ng that burden on the de

fen dant.” Ja ck son , 185 Il

l . 2d at 42 5, Buchel

eres , 171 Ill . 2d at 456. Our suprem e court has hel

d that once a court fin

ds that a danger i s open and obv ious, the court’s anal

ys is is not “compl

ete” until it has
an al y zed th ese f our “tra di tional ” f actors. Ja ck son , 185 Il

l . 2d at 42 5, Buchel

eres , 171 Ill . 2d at 456. The To gher s’ br ief to t he t rial co ur t so ught summary judg ment o n one gr ou nd o nly: “The Toghe rs di d not owe th

e pl ai nti f f a duty to warn a

gai ns t ‘open an d obv i ous’ dan gers .” Dr. Joh ns on, an ex pert h i red by pl ai nti f f , sta ted in h i s a f f i da vi t and a t his dep osi

ti on, tha t the de si gn of the Toghers’ pool was “

very unusual .” Fi

rst, Dr. Johnson’ s af

fi davi t stat ed that the design

was “uns af e f or the ordi

na ry pool u ser”wh o exp ects a pool to h av e b oth a sh

al l ow and a de ep en

d. Sec ond , Dr . Joh

ns on’ s a f f i da vi t sta ted tha t the prob l em wa s c om poun de d by an “ opti ca l ill us i on of a de ep e nd, ” cr eat ed by t he plac ement of a classic d eep -e nd ladd er at one end o f the po ol, and t he pl acem en t at the opposi

ng e nd of broad stepstyp i cal

l y ass oci ated wi

th a s ha ll ow end. Thi

rd, Dr. John son’ s af

f i dav it obser ve d tha t the pool bottom w as uni

f orm i n tex ture an d pattern , wh

i ch Dr. Jo hnso n st at ed mad e t he po ol d ept h “diffi cult if not imposs ible to judg e. ” At his dep os itio n, he t est ifi ed t hat t he “Sp ar kle Blue ” co lor in the “C re ek S t one ” pa t t er n “wo uld help t o o bscu re t heNo. 1-06- 1447

3 The 199 6 ho lding in Barham co nt ra dict s t he 19 94 ho lding in Kl en , wh er e t his c o ur t he ld that it could not fi

nd as a m atter of l aw that the danger of a sh al low, aboveground pool was 12 bott om.” The ex

pert’s aff ida vi t and deposition testim

ony c reated a materi al

is sue of f act about whethe r a sh al l ow bottom i

n a “deep e nd” sec tion of th e pool wasa n onobv

i ous da nge r. Plai ntif f testif ied at his depositi on that it was thi s i ll usi on that caused hi

m to assum

e i t was saf e to dive. However, the obvi ousness of

the danger an

d the duty to warn are deci ded not based on pl ai nti f f ’s own s ubj ecti

ve perce pti on but by

an obj ecti ve standard. Kl

en , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 1041. The Toghers’ appel la te brief ci ted three cases whi

ch h eld that a swim

mi ng pool was an
o pe n a nd o bvio us da ng er . All t hr ee ca se s a r e r ea dily d ist ing uis ha ble fr o m t he ca se at ba r . Fir st , in Os bor ne v. Cl ay don , 266 Il

l . App. 3d 43 4 (199 4), the a ppel l ate court af

f i rm ed a g ran t of su m mary j udgm en t ag ai nst a 1 7-y ea r-ol d pl ai nti f f wh o su f f ered s pi na l inj uri es f rom a h eadf i rs t di ve into a po ol lo cat ed in de fendant s’ bac kyar d. The app ellate co ur t in Osbo rne hel d that defenda

nts had

“ no r ea son to be l i eve th at a

17 y ea r ol d ** * w oul

d not ap pre ciate

the obv i ous da ng er of attempting a

runni ng di ve i nto t he sh al low en d of the pool.” Osbo rne , 266 Il l . App. 3d a

t 440. By c o nt r as t , in t he ca se at ba r , t he en d o f t he po o l int o wh ich pl ain t iff d o ve wa s n o t o bvi o us ly a shal low en d. Sec ond , in Bar ham v. Knick re hm , 27 7 I ll . A pp . 3d 10 34 , 10 38 -3 9 ( 19 96 ), th e a pp el l ate
co ur t held t hat an abo vegr ou nd sw imm ing po ol wit h a unifo rm de pt h of 3 1⁄2 fee t was an o pen a nd obvi ous danger to a reasonable 13-yea r-old. 3 Unlike t he po ol in Barham , t he T o gh er s’ po o l didNo. 1-06- 1447

obv i ous to a rea sona

bl e 14-y ear-ol d. Kl en , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 1044. The Barham opini on ma de no ment ion o f the op po sing de cision issu ed by t his co ur t t wo years ear lier in Kl en . 13 not have a unifor m dept h and w as no t abo ve gr ou nd. Plaint iff in the c ase at bar alleged t hat t he dang er of t he T og her s’ po ol wa s du e, in par t , t o it s unp re dict able var iatio n in dept h. I n add itio n, depth i s u su al l y m ore ob vi ous in a n a bov eg roun d pool than in an i n-grou nd poo l l

ike the Toghers’ po ol. Thu s, t he po ol in Barham i s rea di l y di sti ngu i sh ab l e f rom th e pool in th e ca se a t bar. Third , in Lederm

an v . Pacif

ic Industries , Inc. , 11 9 F .3d 55 1 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 7) , the S ev

en th Cir cu it Co ur t o f Ap pe als hel d that t he swi

mm in g pool at issue posed an

open and obv

ious dan ger und er Il l inoi s law. Lederm

an , 1 19 F .3 d at 555 . T he sw imm ing po ol in Lederm

an was an ingroun d pool , wi

th a s ha l l ow end an

d a de ep en

d. Lederm

an , 119 F.3d at 552. There were three steps le adi

ng down i nto t he sh al low en d; and a div in g board was l

ocated at the opposite, deep
en d. Lederm

an , 11 9 F .3d

at 5 52- 53. A

one -f oot-wi de wh ite l ine wa s p ai nted acros s th

e b ottom of the p ool, to sep arate th

e sh al l ow end f rom th e dee p en d. Lederm

an , 119 F.3d at 553. It was uncl ear whether pl

ai ntif f dove i nto t he sh al low or deep end: pl

ai ntif f’ s brother testifi

ed that pla int iff st o o d n ea rt he midd le o f t he po o l an d a t t emp t ed t o div e in t o t he de ep en d b ut lo st his f ootin g, wh

il e pl ai nti f f den i ed s l i ppi ng. Lederm

an v . Pacif

ic Industries , Inc. , 939 F. Supp. 619, 622 (N .D. Il

l . 1996) , aff’ d 119 F.3 d 55 1 ( 7t h Cir. 199 7) . T he T og her s’ po ol is no t hing like t he po ol in Lederm

an . The Toghers’ pool did not have ei ther a deep end or a whi

te li ne pai nted across t he bott om to in

dicate depth. T hus, the swim mi ng poo l cases discussed in the To ghers’ appel la te brief are readil y di stin guis hab le from the facts at hand.No. 1-06- 1447

14

Plai ntif f cl ai ms that t he sh

al low depth of water i

n wh at normal

ly would ha ve b een the deep end is a nalog ou s t o t he da nger cr eat ed by t he su bmerg ed p ipe in Ja ck son . I n Ja

ck son , p laint iff al leged that her son, a 19-yea r-old adul t, died af ter divi ng i nto t he deep en

d of a swi mm in g area
an d hi ttin g hi s h ead on a su bm erged pi pe. Ja ck son , 18 5 I ll. 2 d a t 42 2. Ou rsu pr eme co ur t he ld that the dan ger of the s ubm erged pi pe wa s not open an

d obv i ous. Ja ck son , 185 Il

l . 2d at 42 6. Like t he su bmerg ed p ipe in Ja ck son , the unusual

danger of the Toghers’ pool, nam el y i ts “optical illus io n” o f de pt h, wa s a lso su bme r ge d. Dr
. Jo hns o n, pla int iff’s sw imming p o o l ex pe r t , st at ed in his affidavit t hat t he T og her s’ po ol cr eat ed a n “op t ical ill usio n of a dee p end .” We ca nnot re ach a concl usi on as a m

atter of l aw that the danger of the Toghers’ pool was obvi ous. As thi s court has hel d bef ore, “[w]here there is

a doubt, t he obv

iousn ess of the dan

ger is for the j ury to determi

ne.” Kl en , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 1044. Even i f the tri al court had properly

found that the dange

r of the Toghers’ pool was open
an d obv i ous, tha t fi ndi ng b y itsel f woul d not h av e b een

en ough f or a gran t of su m mary j udgm en t. Sch el l en be rg , 23 1 I ll . A

pp . 3d at 5 3 ( “ Ev en

i f a r i sk i s c on si de re d op en an d obv i ous , a

du ty to
wa r n ma y st ill be imp o se d” )
. T he t r ial c o ur t wa s s t ill re qu ire d t o an alyz e t he fo ur “t r ad it io na l” f actors. Ja

ck son , 18 5 Ill. 2d at 425 ; Buchel eres , 171 Ill . 2d at 456, Wit h r es pe ct t o t he firs t t wo t r ad it io na l fac t o r s, t he like liho o d o f inju r y and t he r ea so na ble for see ability of su ch injury, d efenda nt Rene e T og her ’s de po sitio n t est imony cre at ed a genu ine iss ue o f mat er ial fa ct wh en she ad mit t ed t ha t div ing int o he rpo o l wa s d an ge r o us an d s he felt
com pel l ed to repe atedl

y warn others of th

i s da nge r. Sch el l en be rg , 23 1 I ll . A

pp . 3d at 5 2 ( “ a d

uty t o w ar n ar ises whe re t he exist ence of a dang er ou s co ndit ion is kno wn ** * and it is no t app ar entNo. 1-06- 1447

4 Th e s i gn wa s read i

nto th e record by an attorn ey at th e d ep osi ti on of Vi nc en t Per f itto,
owne r of d ef en dan t Bl ack O ak, i

n the con text of ask ing Perf itto a questi

on ab out it. 15 t o t he o t her par t y”). Also, defend ant James T og her t est ifi ed t hat he r ece ived a p last ic war ning sign fro m defenda nt Black Oak . T he sign st at ed: “Dang er . S hallow w at er . N o d iving. Diving
ma y c ause death, paral

ys is or permanen

t inj ury.” 4 With r esp ect t o t he last t wo re levant fact or s, t he magnit ude of t he bur den o f gua rd ing aga inst t he injury and t he co nseq uenc es o f placing t hat bur den o n defend ant To gher s, d efenda nt Jam es Togher’s deposi

tion testim

ony c reated a genui

ne i ssue of m

aterial fact whe n he adm itted t ha t he wa s p r o vid ed wit h “no div ing ” a nd wa r ning sig ns t ha t he ch o se no t t o po st , alt ho ug h his wi f e adm i tted that sh

e kn ew th at sh

e h ad a d an geroussi

tuati on i n th e us e of thei r pool. Ja ck son , 185 Ill . 2d at 427 (dut y to warn was b ased, i n part, on the fact that the danger could h ave b een “el im in ated at virtuall

y n o cost or expense” to defen dant). Defen

dant Jam es Togher testifi

ed that af ter com pl eti on of th e p ool , V in cen t Pe

rf itto, th e ow n er of de f en da n t Bl ack O ak , pr

ov i de d b oth adhe sive “no diving” signs t o a t t ach t o t he po ol liner a nd a p last ic war ning sign t hat co uld be hu ng
near t he po ol. To gher t est ifi ed t hat Per fitt o t old him that t he “liner infor matio n” indicat ed t he ap propri ate

plac em en t of the ad he si ve wa rn ing si gn s. T hu s, th e record cre ate d ge

nu ine i ss ue s of
material f act wi th respect to al

l f our of th e tradi tional f actors. Rich , 2 26 I ll. 2d a t 370 (a genu ine i ssu e of material f act req ui res th e den i al of a sum mary j udgm en t motion). Pr ior t o t he t rial co ur t ’s su mmary judgment dec ision, defend ant s o ffered t he affidavit and depo sition test im

ony of a medical

to xicologist who offered an o pini on abo ut plain

tiff ’sNo. 1-06- 1447

5 The To gher s’ ap pellat e br ief cited t he fede ra l distr ict c ou rt ’s o pinion in Lederm an wit hou t citing t he su bseq uent app ellate co ur t ’s o pinion.

6 I n a fo o t no t e t o t he ir a pp ella t e b r ief’ s s t at eme nt o f fac t s, t he T o gh er s a r gu e t ha t t he ir
ex pert’s testi m ony woul d m eet the requi rem en ts f or adm i ssi bi l ity s et f orth by the a ppel l ate court in Bodkin v. 5401 S.P., Inc. , 3 29 I ll. App. 3d 6 20 ( 200 2) . I n Bo dk in , t his c o ur t st at ed t ha t I llino is
co ur t s in n eg lige nc e c as es ha ve “c o nsis t en t ly held t ha t ev ide nc e o f alc o ho l co nsu mpt io n is in adm is si bl e absen t a showin

g of i ntoxica tion resul ting i n i mpa irm ent of m ental or phys ic al abi li ties an d a correspondin

g dim in ution i n the abil ity to act with ordin

ary ca re.” Bo dk in , 32 9 I ll. 16 intoxication at the t im

e of t he accident. Plain

tiff ’s all eged into xication doe s not affect this cou rt ’s anal ys is of whether the dan

ger was open and obv

ious. Open

and obv ious i s eval

uated on an obj ecti ve standard. Lederm

an v . Pacif

ic Industries , Inc. , 119 F.3d 551, 554 (7t h 1997) (af ter stati ng “ whethe r a par ticul ar dan

ger i s open

an d obv i ous i s an obj ecti ve inqu i ry ,” app el l ate court affirmed wit hou t even ment ioning p laintiff’s alco hol co nsumpt ion, which had been no t ed in t he dis trict court ’s opin

ion), af fi rmi ng Lederm

an v . Pacif

ic Industries , Inc. , 939 F. Supp. 619, 626 (N.D. Ill . 1996) 5 ; Mt. Zion State Bank& Trust v. Consol ida ted Comm

uni cations, Inc. , 169 Ill . 2d 110 , 12 6 (1 995 ); Kl

en , 268 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 1035, 10

42 n .10 (19 94) (“ obj ecti

ve standard” ). Plai nti f f ’s al l eg ed intox i ca ti on m ay l ate r b e re l ev an t to i ss ue s s uc h a s proximate ca us e, a ss um

pti on of risk a nd c ontri butory ne gl i gen ce, wh i ch were not rai sed

as issu es on

thi s ap peal
. Kl en , 26 8 I ll. App. 3d at 103 5, 1 042 n.10 (pr oximate caus e, a ssumpt ion o f risk); Buchel eres , 171 Ill . 2d at 447 (contributory negl

ige nce) 6 ; Barham

, 27 7 I ll. A pp . 3d at 10 39

- 40 ( pr o ximat e c au se )
. Ho we ve r , itNo. 1-06- 1447

App. 3d a t 634 . T his co ur t furt her obs er ved t hat “[i]nt oxica t ing bever age s affect different per so ns in d i f f ere nt w ay s a nd som e p ers ons wou l d b e i

ntox i ca ted by the con su m pti on of a q ua nti ty of alcohol wh

ic h m igh t have n o eff ect on another person.” Bo dk in , 32 9 I ll. A pp . 3d at 63 4. T his court takes no position c oncerni ng the f uture admi ssi

bi li ty of ev ide nce of pl ai ntif f’ s al leged intox i ca ti on or its re l ev an ce to the pos si bl e i ss ue s of

prox imate ca us e, a ss um

pti on of ri sk or contributory n

egl ige nce. 17 is no t r ele va nt t o t he de t er minat io n o f t he du t y o we d b y de fen da nt s, wh ich is t he iss ue o n t his appe al
. Kl

en , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 1042 n.10. In addi tion, if we we

re to fi nd that the unknown depth of the Toghers’ pool was an open and obv ious dan ger, then we m

ust fi nd that the design of the pool was a di straction. The open
an d obv i ousru l e hastwo e

x ce pti on s: (1 ) th

e d i strac ti on ex ce pti on ; an d ( 2) th e del

i b er ate
encoun ter ex cepti

on. Bl ue v. Env ironm ental Engi neeri ng, Inc. , 215 Il

l . 2d 78, 1 06 (20 05); La Fe ve r v . K em l ite C o. , 185 Ill . 2d 380, 391 (1998). The del ib erate encounter exception s tates that a possessor o f prem

is es i s l ia bl e for an open a

nd obvi ous danger “wh

en the possess or ‘has reason t o expect that t he i nvi tee will pro ceed to encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonabl

e m an i n hi s position the advan

tages of doin

g so would outweigh the apparen t risk.” LaFev er , 18 5 I ll . 2d

at 3 91 , qu oti

n g Res tate

m en t (S ec on d) of

Tort s, §3 43 A , C om

m en t f , at 220 (1965 ). The

del i be rate en coun ter ex cepti

on h as n o appl i cation to thi s ca se. The di stracti on ex cepti on state s tha

t “the posse ssor of

the prem i ses shoul d an

tic i pate harm t o a n invitee w hen t he po sses so r ‘ha s re aso n t o e xpec t t hat t he invitee ’s at t ent ion may beNo. 1-06- 1447

18

di stra cte d, s o tha

t he wi ll not d i sc ove r wh at i s obvi ous , or w ill

f orge t wh at h e has di sc ove

red , or fai l to prot ect hi

ms el f agai nst i t.’ ” LaFev

er , 18 5 Il l . 2d at 3 91, quoti

ng Re sta tem en t (Se con d) of Tort s, §3 43 A , C om

m en t f , a t 220 (1 965 ). The co mbinatio n of a number of fac t or s abo ut t he Toghes’ pool cam

e toget her to creat e a di straction, or as Dr. Jo hns on phrased i t, “an optical il lus ion.” Th

ese f actors incl

uded: the pl acem

ent of a cl assi c deep-end l

adder in a shal low en d; t he po sitio ning o f bro ad, shallow -e nd st eps on t he side op po sing t he class ic dee p- end lad der ; t he
m ixi ng of sh al l ow and dee

p waters in a non tradi tional des i gn w hi ch conf ounded the

ordina ry swimmer’s e xpec t at ion o f a dee p and a sha llow end ; and a “Spa rk le Blue” co lor in a rep eat ing “Cr ee k S t o ne ” p at t er n w hic h he lpe d t o o bsc ur e t he bo t t o m. Fo rt he r ea so ns s t at ed ab o ve , we r ev er se t he t r ial c o ur t ’s gr an t o f su mmar y jud gme nt in favor o f def

endant To ghers. Defe ndan t Black Oak Plaint iff sue d de fendant Black Oak , t he se ller and insta ller o f the po ol, for negligenc e and st rict liabil

ity. T o s ucc eed on a negligenc e claim, a p laintiff must p ro ve t hat : ( 1) t he de fendant owed the plai

ntif f a duty of care; (2) the def

endan t breached that duty; (3) the plai ntif f s uff ered an inj ury ; a nd (4) the pl ai nti f f ’s inj ury wasproxi

matel y caus ed by

the def en dan t’s b reach. Cal

le s , 224 Ill. 2d a t 2 70; Ha

rl in v . Se ars

Roe buck & C o. , 36 9 Ill. App. 3d 2 7, 3 2 (2 006 ); Simmons , 32 9 I ll. App. 3d at 42. To succeed on a strict li

abi li ty cl ai m, a pl ai ntif f m ust prove that a pro duct was sold i n an
unr eas onab l y dan gerouscond

ition
. Cal

le s , 22 4 I ll . 2d at 2 54 . Il

l in oi s c our ts u til i ze two te sts to det er mine whet her a pr od uct was unr eas ona bly danger ou s: t he co nsumer expe ct at ion t est ; andNo. 1-06- 1447

19

the risk uti

l ity test. Cal

le s , 22 4 I ll . 2d at 2 54 -5 6. A

pl ai n tif f may su cc ee d by

pr ov in g th

e el em en ts of e i ther tes t. Cal

le s , 224 Ill . 2d at 255. Under the consumer ex pectation test, a plai

ntif f s ucceeds by provin g that “the product fail

ed to perform as an ordi

nary consum er would expect when used in an i ntended or reasonabl

y f oreseeabl e m ann er.” Cal le s , 224 I ll . 2d at 256. Under t he risk uti l i ty tes t, a pl ai n tif f su cc ee ds b y

pr ov in g that “

th e m ag n itude of

th e d an ge r ou twei gh s th

e util ity of the product, as design

ed.” Cal le s , 224 Il l . 2d at 25 9. In its b ri ef to th e tr i al cou rt, d ef en da n t Bl ack O ak sou gh t su m mar y j ud gm en t so lely on t he ground that it had no duty to warn concerni ng an open and obv

ious dan ger. As al

ready di scussed above, this court cannot reach a co ncl usion as a m

att er of law that t he danger of the To ghers’ po ol wa s o bviou s. E ven if we co uld r eac h suc h a co nclusio n, t hat hold ing by itself wo uld be ins uf f i ci en t to sustai n a gran t of su m mary j udgm en t. Obv i ous n es s of

a d an ge r i s n ot an ab sol ute ba r to either a

ne gl i gen ce c l ai m or a stri ct l i ab il ity c l ai m . Cal le s , 224 Il l . 2d at 25 9, 262- 263, 27 1. In a n eg l i ge nc e s ui t, we are sti ll req ui red to con si der th e f our tr aditi ona

l f ac tors: (1) the

l i ke l i hood of inj ury ; ( 2) th

e re as ona bl e f ors ee abil ity of su ch inj ury ; ( 3) th

e m ag ni tude of the bu rde n of gu ardi n g aga in st th e i n j ur y ; an d ( 4) th e c on sequ en

ce s of pl ac in g that b

urde n on th e def en da n t. Simmons , 32 9 Ill. App. 3d at 42; Buchakl ia n , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 200. Under the risk util ity test for a str ict li

abi li ty clai m, “the court must balance factors it fi nds relev ant to deter mi

ne i f the case is a proper o ne to subm

it to t he j ury.” Cal

le s , 2 24 I ll. 2d a t 266 . S ugg est ed fac t or s include t he likelihoo d o f inj ur y and t he bur den o n t he de fendant , w ith r esp ect t o t he co st , fea sibil ity and
av ai l ab il i ty of an al terna tiv e. Cal le s , 224 Ill . 2d at 264-65. Wit h r es pe ct t o t he fir st t wo t r ad it io na l fa ct o r s, t he lik elih o o d a nd fo r se ea bilit y o f inju r y,No. 1-06- 1447

20

Vincent Per fitt o, ow ner of d efenda nt Black Oak , c re at ed a genu ine issue o f mate rial fact when he adm itted at his

depositi on that it would hav e been “a very good idea

” to po st “no di

vi ng” si gns at the Togh ers’ pool “

to warn s ome

body prior to jum

pi ng i n s ha ll ow water”be caus e i

t is “v ery possi bl e” th at a per son c an

sus tain a cerv i cal inj ury f rom such a j um p. Sch el l en be rg , 231 Ill . App. 3d at 52 ( “a du t y t o wa r n a r ise s w he r e t he ex ist en ce o f a d an ge r o us co nd it io n is k no wn ** * a nd it is not apparent to the other part y” ). Perfi tt o also testif

ied that he left the deci si on to the customer whet her t o p os t t he wa rning sig ns but t hat , in his expe rience , c ust omer s po st ed t he wa rning sig ns “n ot to o often .” With r esp ect t o t he se co nd t wo fact or s, t he magnit ude and c ons equ ence s o f placing t he dut y to war n on d efenda nt Black Oak , P er fitt o c re at ed a genu ine issue o f mate rial fact when he t est ifi ed t hat it t ake s “maybe 15, 20 minut es” t o inst all the a dhes ive war ning st icker s and t he pl asti c war ni ng s i gns . He al

so testi f i ed th at ins tall ati on req

ui red on l y “a good ey e [an d] a l ev el ,” and t hat his co mpany rec eived t he wa rning st icker s and signs fro m the liner manufact ur er in a “saf ety packet.” Ja

ck son , 1 85 I ll. 2d a t 427 (d ut y to war n was base d, in par t , o n t he fact t hat t he dang er co uld have been “e lim inate d at virt ually no co st or expe nse” t o d efenda nt ). Thu s, t he record c reated gen ui ne i ssu es of material f act wi th respect to al

l f our of th e tradi tional f actors. Rich , 226 Il

l . 2d at 37 0 (a ge

nui ne i ssu e of material f act req ui res th e den i al of a sum mary j udgm en t motion). Fo rt he r ea so ns s t at ed ab o ve , we r ev er se t he t r ial c o ur t ’s gr an t o f su mmar y jud gme nt in fav or o f def endan t Black Oak.No. 1-06- 1447

7 The sup re me co ur t st at ed t hat it r eject ed a n abso lut e bar in the ne gligence co nt ext for t he
sam e rea sons al ready stated i n i ts earl i er di scu ssi

on of strict l i ab il ity. Cal le s , 224 Ill . 2d at 271. The cita t ion in t he t ext is to t he co ur t ’s st rict liabil ity discu ssio n. 21 Defe ndan t Latham As wit h defend ant Black Oak , p laintiff’s co mplaint ag ainst defend ant Lat ham, t he
man uf ac turer of th e p ool ’s

l in er , al so a

ll eg ed cl ai m s of n eg l i ge n ce an d s tri ct l i ab il ity . In its b ri ef to t he t rial co ur t , d efenda nt Lat ham moved for summary judg ment o n t wo gr ou nds: (1 ) t he To gher s’ po ol wa s an o pen a nd o bviou s da nger and t hus r equ ired no w ar ning fro m defenda nt La th am ; an d ( 2) asth e m

an uf ac turer of a c om pon en t pa rt, d ef en da n t La th am owe d n o duty ari si ng out of the f ina l ass em bl y of a pool that wasdes i gned an d bu il t by others
. As al ready di scussed above, this c ourt cann ot reach a concl

usi on as a m

atter of l aw that the danger of the Toghers’ pool was obvi ous; and ev

en i f we c ould reach

such a conclus ion, that hol di ng b y itsel f woul d be ins uf f i ci en t to sustai n a gran t of su m mary j udgm en t. In a cas e involving a manufac t ur er , o ur sup re me co ur t held t hat t he “o pen a nd o bviou s nat ur e o f a dang er is just one factor in eval uating” cl ai ms for negl ige nce an d strict li abi li ty, but “[i ]t is not dispositive.” Cal

le s , 224 Il l . 2d at 27 1. Our supreme court expl

ai ned that the poli

cy reason beh

in d the rejection of an ab sol ute b ar wa s the

des i re to enc ourage th

e con si derati on of al terna tiv e an d sa f er des i gns . Cal le s , 224 Ill . 2d at 262. 7 Wi th respect to the fi

rst t wo tr adi

tional factors, defen

dant Latham ’s saf

ety packet created a ge nuine issu e o f mate rial fact wit h re spe ct t o t he likelihoo d and for see ability of injury. T heNo. 1-06- 1447

8 Oliver t est ifi

ed t hat he wa s hired in 199 5 as Lat ham’s “Mana ger of Cu st omer and T ec hnic al S er vic e” an d w o r ke d t he r e fo ralmo st 10 yea r s. At “so met ime in 2 00 1, ” h is t it le ch an ged to “ Tech

ni cal Support Ma

na ger”, a nd h e was no l onge r resp onsi bl e f or custom er se rvi ce. He t he n w r o t e L at ha m’s pr o ce du r es an d ma nu als “o n ho w t o inst all a liner , ho w t o bu ild a po o l, and h ow to assem

bl e products, resolution of

problem s encountered comm

only, thin gs of that
na ture.” 22 pa ck et wa s p r o vid ed by La t ha m t o Bla ck Oa k, wh ich , in t ur n, pr o vid ed it t o Ja mes T o gh er ; a nd it inc l uded num erous w arn

ings agai ns t the da nge rs of di vi ng i nto the Togh

ers’ pool. Sch

el l en be rg , 23 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 52 ( “a du t y t o wa r n a r ise s w he r e t he ex ist en ce o f a d an ge r o us co nd it io n is know n ** * an

d i t is not app aren

t to t he other pa rty” ). Wi th r es pe ct to the s ec ond

two tra di ti ona l f ac tors, the

mag ni tude an d c ons eq ue nc es of pla ci ng the duty to warn on def endan t Latham, the deposi

tion testim

ony of John Ol iv er created genu ine issues of mat er ial fact. Oliver w as La t ham’s t echnica l service manage r a t t he t ime that t he Toghers’ pool was i

nstal led. 8 Ol ive r ad m itted th at a f ter a n a cc i de nt i n a noth er l aw su it and pr

i or t o t he ac cid en t in t he ins t an t ca se , he sp o ke wit h D av e M o r r is o f V inyl P las t ics , La t ha m’s vin yl
man ufa ct ur er , ab o ut impr int ing wa r ning sig ns d ire ct ly o n t he vinyl o f t he po o l liner
. Aft er Mo r r is indi cated that the w arn

ings woul d m ake th e l ine r less attracti ve , Ol ive r took no f

urthe r steps . In ste ad , La

tha m ch ose to prov i de sti ck y l ab el s of wa rn ing in i ts s af ety pack et. N o ex plan ati on
was offer ed a s t o w hy stick y labels wer e mor e at t ra ct ive – unles s, o f co ur se, nobo dy expe ct ed t he customer to use t hem . Oli ver testif ied that only

15% of i ts custo me

rs returned the cards providedNo. 1-06- 1447

23

in L atha m ’s saf ety pack et to in dicate th at they

ha d rece ive d or appl

i ed the war

ni ng s i gns . In addi tion, Dr. Johnson, plai

ntif f’ s expert, testifi

ed at hi s depositi

on that “[y]ou can put warnin gs on li ners,” that “there [was] an o bl igation on the part of Latham to put some of those
wa rn ing on th ei r viny l l ine r,” tha t “ the abil ity to pri nt w arn ing s or an y thi ng tha t y ou w an t to on vi ny l ha s b ee n a

va il ab l e i n th e i nd us try goi ng cl ea r b ac k to 19 83”

an d th at “ the re [ wa s] no r

ea son La th am coul dn ’t h

av e d on e i t.” In Dr . J ohn son ’s

opi n i on , “th e s wi

m m in g p ool in du str y n ee ds to t ake a mor e pr oa ct ive st ance on mak ing t he po ol sa fer w ith d ept h mark er s and diving war ning si gn s a n d th ose ki n ds of thin gs .” Th

us , the rec ord

crea ted ge nui n e i ss ue s of

mate rial f ac t wi th resp ect to al

l f our of th e tradi tional f actors. Rich , 226 Ill . 2d at 370 (a genuin e i ssue of m

aterial f act req ui res th e den i al of a sum mary j udgm en t motion). In t he alt er nat ive, La t ham so ught summary judg ment o n t he gr ou nd t hat , a s t he
ma nuf acturer o f a com

ponent part, it owed no dut y a risi ng out o f the f

in al assem bl y of a pool that
wa s d es ign ed an d b uilt by o t he r s. I n it s br ief t o t he t r ial c o ur t , La t ha m did no t cit e a sing le
su pp o r t ing ca se in t his s ec t io n o f it s br ief. I n it s a pp ella t e b r ief, it cit ed o ne ca se in su pp o r t o f t his poin t: Loos v. Am

erica n Energy Savers, Inc. , 168 Il

l . App. 3d 55 8 (198 8). In Loos , pl

ai nti f f al l eg ed de f en da nt h ad man uf ac ture d towe

r s upp ort l

eg s that w ere

not strong e nough to support the d

esi gned tower, wh

i ch sub seq uen tly toppl ed. Loos , 168 Ill . App. 3d at 560. In

su pp ort of its m oti on f or s um mar y j ud gm en t, d ef en da n t su b m itted an af f i da v it f rom its vi ce -pr es i de nt f or m an uf ac turi ng sta ting tha t de f en da nt “ wa s n ot prov i de d w ith a

ny inf orm ati on from whi ch i t could judge

whether the strength of the tower would be a ppropriate.” Loos , 168 Ill. App . 3 d at 563 . T he ap pellat e co ur t held t hat while “[a] co mpo nent par t manufact ur er may beNo. 1-06- 1447

9 Ol iv er tes tif i ed th at th e N SP I w as“ an

in du str y -re l ate d g roup that prom

otes th e prod uc ts that are sold an d i ns tal l ed by the p ool i

ndu stry” an

d tha t def en dan t Latha m bel onge d to NSPI.
10 A t his dep osi

ti on, Ol ive r re ad into th e record the f oll owi ng porti on of La tha m ’s pool
owner man

ual : “The Na

tional Spa & Pool Insti

tut e, NSPI, in as sociation with A me rican National Standards Insti

tut e, ANSI, devel

oped standards for residentia l s wim mi ng pools. Thi s l

in er was produced in c onform

ance wi th eithe r the ANSI, NSPI 1995 or ANSI NSPI 4 1992 design standard.”

11 In addition, Oli

ver admi tt ed that he had seen l

anguage empl

oyed by Cardinal Systems , 24 f oun d s tri ctl y l i abl e f or th e i n j ur i esattr i b uta b l e to th e def ec tiv e c om

pon en t,” pl ai n tif f f ai l ed to sub m i t any evi den ce to contra

dict def en dan t’s a f f i dav it. Loos , 1 68 I ll. App. 3d a t 563 . T hus, t he trial cou rt p rop er l y gr an ted sum mar y j ud gm en t. Loos , 168 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 563. By con tra st, Ol iv er ’s de pos iti on tes tim ony crea ted a m ate rial i ss ue of f ac t ab out b oth whethe r Latham ha d suf f i ci en t in f orma tion to judge the app

ropri ateness

of i ts com ponent pa rt. Ol ive r testi f i ed th at the N ati onal

Spa a nd P ool In sti

tute (NSPI) 9 set ind

us try sta ndard s f or
re sident ial, no ndiving po ols, and t hat t he de sign o f the To gher s’ po ol, as r eflect ed o n a dr awing by a Lat ham employee , d id no t meet a number of N SP I st anda rd s. O liver ack now ledge d t hat one of th e p ur pos esof th e NPS I s tan

da rd s w assa

f ety . A l th oug h Ol iv er cl ai m ed th at c om pl i an ce wi th NS PI st an da r ds wa s no t La t ha m’s r es po nsib ilit y bu t t he r es po nsib ilit y o f t he inst alle ro f t he po o l, he ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t La t ha m’s o wn er ’s man ua l, 10 whi ch was deli

vered to the To ghers, guaranteed that t he l

in er was pro duced in conf

ormity wi th NSPI standards. 11 Thus , the recordNo. 1-06- 1447

Inc., whi ch was the m

anuf acturer o f the s teel pan

el s f or t he Toghers’ pool, to t he ef fect that Cardi nal ’s di g speci fi cations s hould b

e veri fi ed by the li ner m anuf acture to in sure that they
com pl i ed wi th NS PI stan

da rd s. Ol iv er tes tif i ed th at L ath am wor ke d on a d ai l y b as i s w ith Card ina l
.
25 crea ted a ge nui ne i ssu e of material f act concern

i ng th e app ropri ateness

of th e com ponent pa rt
man ufa ct ur ed by d efe nd an t La t ha m. The di ssen

t makes a n

umb er of l egal errors. First, the diss ent’s one an d only point i s that the Toghers’ pool was n

ot an open an

d obvi ous danger. Our supreme court could not have been
m ore cl ear: “ open an d obv i ous” is not an ab sol

ute b ar to li ab il

ity. Ja ck son , 185 Ill . 2d at 425. Thus, even i

f we were to assume f

or a moment that the dissent was correc t and t hat the To ghers’ pool wa s a n open an d obv i ousda

n ge r, ou r i n qu i ry ca n n ot en d th ere. W e m

us t sti ll pr oce ed to anal yz e the four traditiona

l f actors, whi

ch the di ssen

t fai led to do. As al

ready di scussed above, the record created material is sues of f

act with respect to all

four fa ctor s and wi

th respect to each de f en da n t. The dissent t ries t o d istingu ish the sup re me co ur t ’s ho lding in Ja ck son , 185 Ill . 2d at 426, by stating “ Ja ck son in volv ed a ris k of i nj ury kn own to t he owner b

ut unknown to t he i

nvi tee.” Sli p op. at 32. But t hat is

the very case we have h

ere. Renee Togher was awa re of the ri sk, that is why she t old peo ple no t t o d ive. La t ham and B lack O ak w er e aw ar e o f the risk, t hat is why t he y dis t r ibu t ed wa r ning s. T he o nly p ar t y wh o wa s no t ale r t t o t he r isk wa s t he pe r so n w ho isNo. 1-06- 1447

26

now a quad ri pl egi c asa res ul

t. T he dis se nt als o as se r t s t ha t “w e n ee d n o t en ga ge in su ch [ t r ad it io na l du t y] a na lysis in t his
ca se o n t he a ut ho rit y of Buchel eres .” Sl i p op . a t 32 . I n Buchel

eres , our supreme court found that a danger was “

open and obv

ious” an d then proceeded to analy ze each a nd every one of

the four tradi tional f actors. Buchel

eres , 1 71 I ll. 2d a t 456 . Fa r fro m elim inating t he t ra dit ional ana lysi s, t he Buchel eres cas e requ

i res i t. Second, the dis sent di scusses the Seven

th Ci rcuit’s opi

ni on in the Lederm

an
ca se asthou gh

it su ppor ts a f ind ing ag ai nst plai nti f f . We c an al l ag ree tha t the depth s of the pool in Lederm

an we r e “ o pe n a nd o bvio us ”: t ha t po o l ha d a sha llo w e nd an d a de ep en d, an d a big whi te li ne pai nted across the botto m to separate the two . The Lederm an pool was a conve

ntional pool, and was n

ot hi ng l ike the Toghers’ pool. A f

in din g agai nst the Lederm

an pla int iff ha s lit t le be ari ng on our cas e. Thi rd, the disse

nt cla im s “there is no f

actual support” for Dr. Johnson’s opini on. Sli p op. at 29. Dr. John son p

rovi ded p l en ty of f actual supp ort, in

both h i s af f i dav it and at his de posi tion
. The se fac t s include d, and w er e no t lim ited t o: t he mixing of shallow and d eep wat er s in a nontraditional

design wh

ic h conf ounded the ordinary

swi mm er’s ex pectation of a deep an

d a shal low en d; the placem

ent of a cl assi c deep-end l

adder in a shal low en d; the posi

tioni ng of b road, sha llo w- en d s t ep s o n t he sid e o pp o sing t he cla ss ic d ee p- en d la dd er ; a nd a “ Sp ar kle Blu e” co lo rin a repeat in g “Creek Sto ne” patt ern whi ch hel ped to obscure t he bott om. Dr. Jo hnson al so di scu ssed how

thi s de si gn v i ola ted a n um be r of i ndu stry standards
. Fourt h, the dissent ci

tes Gl as s v . Mor

ga n G ua ran ty Tru st C o. , 238 Ill . App. 3d 355No. 1-06- 1447

27

(1992), o ut o f context. The di ssen t cited Glass

for the proposition that : “ ‘T he o pt ica l illus io n is in the m i nd of the beh old

er.’ ” Sl i p op. at 30. Glass , 2 38 I ll. App. 3d a t 359 . I n Glass , t he op t ical ill usio n was onl

y in the m ind of the p l ai nti f f
. Glass , 238 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 357-59. I

n
re spo nse t o a summary judg ment mo t ion, t he plaint iff in Glass offer ed o nly plaintiff’s subject ive bel i ef that an optic al ill usi on wa s cre ated by

the s tai rs down wh i ch sh e f el l
. Glass , 238 Ill . App. 3d at 357-59. T hi s court not ed i n that case that

pl ai n tif f f ai l ed to “ i de n tif

y an ex pe rt w itn es s to sub stan tia te” her cl ai m s or “ an y en gi ne eri ng a nd a rch itectural standards

that al l eged l y were vi ola ted,” an d thus we af f i rm ed the gran

t of su m mary j udgem en t in f av or of de

f en dan t. Glass , 238 Ill . App. 3d at 359, 362. By contrast, plai ntif f i n the case at bar suppl

ied what the Glass plai nti f f f ai l ed to prov i de : a l i st of vi ol ate d i nd us try sta ndard s; an

d a n e xp ert’ s op ini

on b as ed on f actual supp ort that the p ool created an optic al il l usi on. Appl yi ng Glass to our facts requires a
rev ersa l
. CONCLUSION In su m, we canno t co nclude as a matt er of law t hat t he da nger of t he T og her s’ sw imm ing pool wa s op en an d ob vi ous . Pl ai nti f f ’s sw im m ing pool ex pert sta ted tha t the Togh ers ’ p ool created an “optical

il lus ion of a deep end” a

nd that its desi

gn was “ very unusual .” In addi

tion, an
o pe n a nd o bvio us da ng er is no t an ab so lut e b ar t o a p laint iff’s r ec o ve r y. A co ur t mus t st ill
co nsider t he t ra dit ional fact or s o f the likelihoo d and for see ability of injury, a nd t he magnit ude and
cons eque nc es of placi ng a duty to warn on

def en dan ts. T he r ec o r d c r ea t ed a g en uin e is su e o f mat er ial fa ct as t o wh et he rt he de fen da nt s in t his
cas e kne w t her e wa s a d ange r a nd failed t o fo llow t hro ugh o n t heir d ut y to war n. D efenda ntNo. 1-06- 1447

28

La th am , the m an uf ac turer of th e p ool l in er , c re ate d s ti ck

y l ab els of wa rn in g, w h i ch it pa ss ed to def en dan t Bl ack O ak, the i

ns tal l er. Bl ack O ak, i

n turn , pas sed

the s tic ky l ab el s to the c ustom

er,
even though it knew c

ustomers rarel

y stuck them on thei

r poo ls . As ex

pected, defenda

nt Jam es To gher cho se no t t o s t ick t he labels o n his po ol, which left his wife Renee t elling the p eo ple she
sa w, no t t o div e. Aft er r ea din g t he affid av it s, de po sit io n t r an sc r ipt s a nd o t he rev ide nc e in t his case, thi s court co ncl

udes that the record creat es a genui ne i ssue of m

aterial fact ab out whether the To ghers’ poo l was an accident waiti

ng to happen. For t he reasons stat ed above, we reverse th e tr i al cou rt’ s gra n t of sum mar y j ud gm en t an d rem an d f or f ur th er pr oce ed in gs con siste

n t wi th thi s opi ni on. Reversed and reman

ded with instruct ions. CAHILL, P.J., concurs. JUSTICE GARCIA, dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority that "[t]he expert's affidavit and deposition testimony created a material issue of fact about whether a shallow bottom in a 'deep end' section of the pool was a nonobvious danger." Slip op. at 14. In my judgment there is no factual support for the expert's opinion. "An expert's opinion is only as valid as the bases and reasons for the opinion. When there is no factual support for an expert's conclusions, his conclusions alone do not create a question of fact." Gyllin v. College Craft Enterprises, Ltd. , 260 Ill. App. 3d 707, 715, 633 N.E.2d 111 (1994).No. 1-06- 1447

29

Dr. Johnson's opinion centers on his contention that the pool design created an "optical illusion of a deep end." I am unpersuaded that a claimed "optical illusion" can be the basis either to create a material factual question or, to the extent the plaintiff means to suggest the existence or not of the "optical illusion of a deep-end" was for the trier of fact to determine, to form a factual question itself. In my judgment, the claim of an "optical illusion of a deep-end" is no different from the thought each unfortunate plaintiff must have had after the disastrous dive: "I thought the water was deeper." The plaintiff's contention that a material question of fact remains based on Dr. Johnson's conclusions transforms the objective inquiry in the duty-to-warn analysis into a subjective one. See Klen , 268 Ill. App. 3d 1031 (duty to warn is determined using an objective standard). With my apologies to all poets, it becomes no longer an objective inquiry but a subjective assertion: "The optical illusion is in the mind of the beholder." See Glass v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. , 238 Ill. App. 3d 355, 359, 606 N.E.2d 384 (1992) (liability claim founded on "optical illusion" that "steps [tended] to blend together visually" rejected because plaintiff's position that landowner should have constructed steps differently goes beyond what the law requires for duty of reasonable care). I also disagree that the cases that have rejected an adultNo. 1-06- 1447

12 These accidents occur even where the plaintiff is familiar with the depth of the pool, but takes an unfortunate dive nevertheless. See, e.g. , Osborne , 266 Ill. App. 3d 434 . I see no relief for similarly situated plaintiffs short of the disavowal of the open and obvious doctrine by our supreme court. See Ford v. Round Barn True Value, Inc. , 377 Ill. App. 3d 1109, 1118 (2007)(MERSCOUGH, J., specially concurring ). 30 plaintiff's claim of liability based on a headfirst dive into a pool are all distinguishable on their facts. I agree with the Lederman court's assessment that the Illinois cases finding against an adult plaintiff stand for the proposition that it is the very uncertainty of the depth of an in-ground pool that makes diving into one openly and obviously dangerous. 12 Lederman , 119 F.3d at 555. I concur with conclusion of the Lederman court: "Illinois' highest court would hold that the risks associated with Mr. Lederman's injurious dive would have been obvious to a reasonable adult in his position." Lederman , 119 F.3d at 555. The Lederman court also implied that a reasonable adult would not have attempted such a dive because "the depth of the pool at any one point could not be ascertained from outside the pool." Lederman , 119 F.3d at 555. This observation echos Dr. Johnson's conclusion that the texture and pattern of the pool bottom made it " 'difficult if not impossible to judge [its depth].' " SlipNo. 1-06- 1447

31

op. at 5. This, however, is not a basis to relieve the plaintiff of his responsibility; rather, it serves to reinforce his responsibility to make such a judgment before attempting a dive. The plaintiff here ignored the danger based on his unwarranted assumption that the ladder at the end opposite the descending steps into the pool suggested a deep-end, safe for diving. 

### I rec ognize o ur supre me co urt has he ld "[t]he existe nce o f an ope n and obvi ous da ng er i s not

a per se bar to f

in din g th at a def

endant who owns, occupi es or contro ls land has a duty to exerc ise rea sona ble ca re." Jackson v. TLC Associates, In c. , 1 85 Ill. 2d 41 8, 42 5, 70 6 N .E .2 d 4 60 (1 99 8) . H ow ev er , t he an aly sis underta ken in Jackson has n o appl i cati on h ere. Our su prem e cour t ex press l y n oted that the iss ue in Jackson di d not i nv ol ve " th e ri sk of

i nj ur y f rom di vi ng i nt o water that is too shallow . [Tha t] risk[] is [not] a t issue he re." Jackson , 185 Ill. 2d at 426. The ri sk of inju ry involved striking a submerged p ipe, w hich our supreme c ourt noted "stemme d so lely from TLC's c onduc t." Jackson , 185 I l l . 2d at 426. I n ot

her words , Jackson involved a risk of injury know n to the o wne r but unkno wn to the invitee. Be caus e the risk of injury diff ered from "the risk o f injury f rom diving into
wa ter that is to o sha llow," the court in Jackson invo ke d t he tra dit ion al d uty an aly sis of l ikeli hood of inj ury and the f oresee ability of such injury . In my j udgment, weNo. 1-06- 1447

32



### ne ed no t e nga ge in s uc h a na lys is in t his ca se on the au tho rity o f Buch el eres . Finally, I reject o ut of hand a ny sugges tion by the p laintif f that a menta l image in the f orm of an "optical il lusion" i s analogous to a "sub merged p ipe." The tw o are of di ff erent natu res; t

hey are not an alog ous. Becau se a re asonabl e adul t i n the pl ai nt i f

f ' s posi ti on wou l d hav e appr eci ated the danger o f diving int o a p ool of unknow n depth, I c onclude the c ircui t court
corre ctly entere d summa ry judgment. I wo uld affirm as to ea ch de fendant.

### REPORTER O F DECI SI ONS - ILLI NOIS APPELLATE COURT (Fr ont Shee t to be a ttache d to ea ch O pinion)

_________________________________________________________________ Ple ase use the ] following form :] ] DON AL D D UF FY, ] ] Plaintiff-Appellant, ] v. ] ] JAMESG. TOGHER , RENEE TOGHER , ] LATHAM PLA STICS , INC. f/k/a P acific ] Pools

Ind ustries , Inc ., BLACK ] OAK POO L SUPPLY, INC., and ] PAC IFI C IN

DUS TRIE S, IN C., ] ] Defendants-Appel lees ] ] (Sh aunna

Trav is, ] ] Defendant). Complete ] TITLE ] of Case. ]

_________________________________________________________________ Docket No. ] No. 1-06-1447

] Appell

ate Cour t of Il linois COURT ] Fir

st Di str ict, Fir st Division ] ] MARCH 31, 2008 Opinio n Fil

ed ] ( Month, Day an d Year )

_________________________________________________________________

] JUSTICES ] JUSTICE ROBERT E. GORDON delive red the opinion ] of t he c ou rt . ] ] CAHILL, P.J. , concurs. GA RCIA, J., dissents.

_________________________________________________________________ APPE AL fr om the] Lower

Cour t and Tr ial Judge(s) in fo rm

indicated Circ ui t C ou rt ] in mar

gin: of Cook County;] Appeal fr om the Circuit Cour

t of Cook County. the Hon:______ ] Judge Pr esiding ] Honor

able R alph Re yna, Judge Pres

iding .

_________________________________________________________________ For APPELLANTS ]Indicate if attorney re presents AP

PELLANT S or John Doe of ]APP

ELLEES a

nd incl ude att or neys of counse

l. Chicago. ]Indi cate t he wo rd N ONE if not

re pre sent ed. For APPE LLEE S, ]_________________________________________________ Smith and ] Smith , of ] Chicago. ] Brown, ] of Co uns el. ] ]

] PLEA SE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR LIST OF AT TORNEYS OR RECORD .No. 1-06- 1447

34 ] ] Also add atty. ] for thir d party] appel lants ] or appellees. ] ___________________(USE REVERSE SIDE I F NEEDED___________________



### ATTORNEYS OF RECO RD

Willia m J. Harte Chicago, Illinois 60602 Attorne y for Appell ant Attn: Will

iam J . Har

te OF COUNSEL The Hea ly La w Fi rm Chicago, Illinois 60602 Attorne ys fo r Appe

ll ant At tn : M art in J. Hea ly, Jr. Jack Cannon Willia m J. Harte Joan M. Mannix OF COUNSEL Bollinger, Ruberry & Gar vey Chicago, Illinois 60661 Attorneys for

Appellees, James G. Togher and Renee Togher Attn: Chri stopher

G. Buenik OF COUNSEL Tressler , Soderstrom, M aloney & Priess, LLP Chicago, Illinois 60606-6399 Attorneys for

Appellee , Latham Plastics, Inc. Attn: John H. Huston OF COUNSEL Doherty & Progar, LLCNo. 1-06- 1447

35 Attorneys for

Appellee , Black Oak Pool & Supply, Inc. Attn: Michael J. Progar and Stephanie Waxler Weiner OF COUNSEL